Custom Lists

Stats

Friends

Recent Comments

Thank you for this intelligent breakdown of the situation. While I am still a recall supporter, I do not appreciate the misleading writings on the issue by The Gazette over the past weeks.

And the typo (hopefully) on the spelling of "notary" does not concern me so much as the fact that an editor for a citywide newspaper does not know how to pluralize compound nouns...as in "notaries public." Oy.

So, I've read a lot of comments on here from both sides of the issue, but the most basic doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Mr. Schuck (who I have only met once) is excercising his right as a citizen to assemble some trusted friends and associates to discuss some ideas about local government. They do not have any authority (and he states this in his letter), but they may come up with some ideas to present to the City Council later (a.k.a. "petition the government for a redress of grievances").

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these are two of the most important rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I do not believe it says anything in the amendment about having to invite people you don't like or disagree with to such assemblies. In fact, it would be my guess that many of the people arguing so vehemently against Mr. Schuck's right to convene such a meeting have had discussions of their own at times with people of like minds. And I would bet a large sum on the fact that they didn't invite Mr. Schuck into their conversations. Nor did they invite the media.

People having discussions about important issues should be celebrated, not disparaged. Whether you agree with his stance or not, having more information is a good thing. Use the information that comes from this conversation (if and when it comes to a public discussion) to better inform your own arguments.